masterofmagicfandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Dark Elf Swordsmen/@comment-109.65.146.65-20190808172510/@comment-1333593-20190812024120
The problem with all of the things you mention missing is that they require more explanation that what I can squeeze into a single sentence, even if I consider a separate one for each, which may already be pushing the purpose of having a preamble to begin with. Since they are all in the infobox, I wasn't actually trying that hard, I do apologize. So let's see if we can rectify that, shall we? The ranged attacks, while they may kind of look good on paper, are actually not useful in practice, and I'll be surprised if you actually play the game and disagree. Even on the top levels, they will fail to do damage against most anything, especially if I overlay them into a context where we are on Myrror, and going up against Myrran races. Of these, the only ones they could really help against are Draconians. But in this case, it's a double-edged sword, as one of the game's bugs will let the Dark Elves "melee" a flying unit because they have a ranged attack, except they won't do any damage, just take the counterattack. Still, I can probably craft a sentence about the ranged attacks giving Dark Elves a slight edge against low-level melee units, if that would satisfy you. The increased Resistance has similar problems. Saying that Dark Elves are more resistant to magic, in general, is inaccurate in this particular game, because saves don't work on physical spell damage. Comparing it to other Swordsmen is also not very informative, given that they have awful base Resistance scores, so "very high compared to" that can be anywhere from mediocre to amazing. In either case though, there is again the practical problem of whether it changes anything, really. Unfortunately, I am not Headrock. I don't believe in stating something just for the sake of stating it. If it doesn't have information content, I don't think it belongs here. It's one thing to note it in the article itself - that's what it's for -, but most certainly not in a "quick summary", which you claim each article "must start with". Last, but not least, there is the "significantly more expensive". I honestly think that this is better expressed with the actual number, which is already there, and have been all along (Barbarians don't cost this much though). I see no line of thoughts where a comparison to other Swordsmen's cost could be any useful. You'll have to help me out here. But if I did want to note this, the recruitment cost difference by itself would be insufficient. It is not meaningful without context which, in this case, is actually the recruitment time. So instead of stating what you (and Headrock both) did, I would probably prefer something along the lines of "they take over twice as long to train". At least, this way, I could use "most other Swordsmen" in comparison, because I don't think that the 5 out of 13 for which the 2.5 may also stand is accurately described by the word "most". The only one real consequence of the recruitment cost is that it defines the minimum amount of production that one must have in a City to be able to create a certain unit in a single turn. However, once that point is reached, a comparison again becomes entirely meaningless, as either unit could be produced in the same amount of time.